Dr. Joseph Siegle, who leads the Africa Center for Strategic Studies’ research and strategic communications program, provided critical insights into South Sudan’s democratic landscape.
In part one of the exclusive interview with Radio Tamazuj, Dr. Siegle assessed the current state of democracy, probed the challenges of diversity in governance, and scrutinized the preparations for upcoming elections.
As South Sudan grapples with delays, the interview delved into the impact of the sluggish implementation of the 2018 peace agreement and the need for an independent body to oversee the electoral process. Dr. Siegle’s nuanced perspective explored the potential pitfalls and pathways to a fairer, credible democratic future for South Sudan.
Below are edited excerpts:
Q: Dr. Joseph Siegle, how would you assess the state of democracy in South Sudan based on your research?
A: Our evaluation of independent indicators in South Sudan yields very low scores. The country has not demonstrated even the fundamental requirements essential for a functioning democracy. Competitive elections are notably absent, with limited room for other political parties to engage in genuine competition. Furthermore, civil society and independent media face severe restrictions. Additionally, there is a notable absence of accountability for the executive branch.
Democracy extends beyond mere electoral processes, and in the case of South Sudan, the foundational elements are lacking. Establishing a democratic culture involves fostering political debate, enabling people to express themselves, and facilitating meaningful choices. Unfortunately, these aspects have not been realized in South Sudan.
Q: Considering the diversity in South Sudan, do you believe the current governance system is the most suitable for the country?
A: Worldwide, diverse countries have demonstrated that democratic systems tend to perform better. The reason is that democracy provides more opportunities for representation. Autocracies, on the other hand, often align with specific ethnic groups, leading to the exclusion of others.
In a genuine democracy, representation is ensured, and there are checks and balances in place. In South Sudan, where no single ethnic group constitutes a majority, the situation naturally lends itself to coalition building and power-sharing arrangements. However, realizing this potential requires mechanisms that facilitate the inclusion of all voices. Unfortunately, due to the ongoing conflict and violence in South Sudan, the necessary processes for inclusive governance have been hampered.
Q: How do you assess the preparations for the upcoming elections in South Sudan?
A: South Sudan has experienced several delays in organizing elections, making the current commitment to hold them by the end of the year a positive development. However, the credibility of an election hinges on various factors, most notably the presence of an independent elections commission. Concerns have been raised about the current composition of the elections commission, with some arguing that it lacks the attractiveness and impartiality desired by many in the opposition.
Creating an environment where political parties can campaign freely is crucial. This includes having an independent press for open debates and discussions, allowing for the presentation of reforms. Several crucial elements are currently missing, such as the proposal for a new consensus and a new constitution before the election, both deemed significant.
Implementing these proposals involves substantial logistical challenges. Compromises and discussions are essential to navigate the complexities of moving toward a competitive election while concurrently addressing the need for an accurate voter registry linked to the census. Planning for the development of a new constitution that is participatory and credible is also paramount, as citizen ownership and belief in the constitution ultimately determine its credibility.
Proceeding with the constitution without ensuring it is seen as participatory risks backlash. Striking a balance and involving citizens in the process are crucial steps to avoid undermining the credibility of the election and the subsequent constitutional developments.
Q: The implementation of the 2018 peace agreement has seen minimal progress. How do you anticipate this will impact the upcoming elections in South Sudan?
A: The lack of substantial progress in implementing the 2018 peace agreement creates a challenging environment for the upcoming elections. It sets up a situation akin to a chicken and egg dilemma—delaying the peace agreement implementation also delays progress towards the elections, while the elections themselves are seen as a means to achieve some of the reforms outlined in the agreement.
Despite the challenging environment, the persistent delays necessitate action. Civil societies in South Sudan have voiced their concerns, calling for a more effective process to move forward. A potential solution could involve independent bodies facilitating both the elections and the overall process. This external facilitation is crucial to ensure the elections attain the necessary level of credibility to make a meaningful impact in South Sudan.
Q: With only about 10 months left until the elections, and no supplementary budget approved by the government, do you believe this will occur before considering an independent body to facilitate the election process?
A: Making predictions about political processes is challenging, but the possibility of achieving this largely depends on the presence of political will. The absence of a committed budget suggests a lack of high political will and provides grounds for further election delays—a significant concern considering the absence of competitive elections in South Sudan since independence.
While international bodies could potentially provide resources to cover costs, this hinges on a genuine commitment to establishing an independent body to oversee the elections. As part of this commitment, arrangements can be made with think tanks and other entities to project a consensus on the rules of the game for the election process. This could involve pledging not to rewrite the constitution until a new elected body and legislature are in place.
Moving forward in a meaningful way requires the establishment of an independent body to navigate these complex issues. Without such a body, progress remains challenging.
Q: Are you suggesting that the country can proceed with polls if there is political will?
A: Yes, I believe it is possible. There is an ongoing debate about whether countries lacking a democratic tradition are ready for democracy, often used as an argument to delay the process. However, this reasoning becomes a somewhat circular argument, asserting that these countries are never ready for democracy, ultimately playing into the hands of those opposing democratic governance.
I advocate for incremental goals, taking steps towards creating a fairer environment that can facilitate more credible and legitimate elections. While perfection may not be attainable, there is ample room for improvement. These improvements contribute to the creation of essential institutions needed not only for the current election but for subsequent ones as well.
Various commentaries from South Sudanese, civil society leaders, and academics provide ideas that, if seized upon, can lead to positive changes. Establishing an independent body committed to impartial implementation of these ideas requires support from domestic actors within South Sudan, as well as backing from the UN and international actors.
Using a football analogy, every match needs a referee—someone to implement the rules fairly. South Sudan should prioritize creating such an independent body to ensure a fair electoral process at this crucial juncture.
Q: The Minister of Information in South Sudan mentioned that a census and a permanent constitution are not necessary for conducting elections. What is your view on this?
A: Addressing these points requires a nuanced approach. Elections in other countries have been held without a new census, so it is technically possible. However, a credible voter registry is crucial, and mechanisms must be in place to ensure its credibility. Engaging think tanks and academic institutions can facilitate this process in South Sudan, even considering the challenge of representing the 42 percent of the population who are refugees.
While having a constitution is essential for defining authorities, roles, and checks and balances, the lack of clarity on these issues is a governance challenge in South Sudan and other areas with persistently fragile political systems. Clearly, there is a need for greater clarity through a constitution. However, rushing the constitution without broad participation is not advisable.
The initial focus should be on conducting credible and competitive elections that bring genuine representatives from all segments of South Sudanese society. Efforts should also be made to build other democratic institutions, including an independent legislature, judiciary, and more space for a free press. Once this foundation is established, there will be a better position to draft and vote on a constitution.
Q: International observers express concerns that poorly organized elections may lead the country back to war. How do you view this argument?
A: The presence or absence of elections does not inherently determine the likelihood of political violence. The key factor is the existence of political will. Political violence can occur whether elections are held or not, as witnessed in various parts of the world where elections are not conducted.
Attributing problems solely to past elections bypasses the real issue in South Sudan—the lack of political commitment to power-sharing. The prevailing winner-takes-all mentality contrasts with the essence of democracy, which is rooted in compromise among diverse groups. Democratic governance involves debating different interests and visions, forging compromises that address everyone’s concerns.
The issue in South Sudan is not the absence of elections but rather the absence of a democratic mentality. Democracy requires rules and accountability for those who violate them. Simply having elections without enforcing these rules and ensuring accountability does not fulfill the true purpose of democratic governance.